Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 May 1996

Vol. 465 No. 5

Supplementary Estimates, 1996. - EU Partnership and Co-operation Agreements: Motions.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I move the following motions:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 2 May 1996.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Kyrgyz Republic, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 23 October 1995.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 2 May 1996.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 2 May 1996.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Belarus, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 23 October 1995.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Estonia, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 23 October 1995.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 23 October 1995.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Latvia, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 23 October 1995.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Lithuania, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 23 October 1995.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 23 October 1995.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 23 October 1995.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, which has been laid before the Dáil on 23 October 1995.

Dáil approval of the terms of these agreements is necessary in accordance with Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution which stipulates that: "the State shall not be bound by an international agreement involving a charge on public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann".

An explanatory memorandum setting out the background to the agreements and their content has been provided for the information of Deputies through the Whips' office. Copies of the Europe Agreements with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreements with Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, were laid before the Dáil on 23 October 1995. Copies of the PCAs with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia were laid before the Dáil on 2 May 1996.

Partnership and Co-operation Agreements were initiated by the European Union with a view to replacing the 1989 Trade and Co-operation Agreement with the former Soviet Union with contractual relations with each of the new states. As their name indicates, they are intended to assist the new states through partnership and co-operation with the European Union, in meeting the challenges of fundamental political and economic reform.

Good relations between the EU and a democratic Russia are clearly in the interests of both parties and are essential to stability in Europe. Ireland, and its partners in the European Union, are committed to establishing a substantial partnership with the Russian Federation in order to promote Russia's economic and democratic reform process, to enhance respect for human rights and to achieve the full integration of Russia into the international community. We must avoid the creation of new dividing lines in Europe.

These considerations underpin the action plan recently adopted by the Union with regard to Russia. There are five main elements in the Union's approach, viz:

—the Union will contribute to the democratic reforms in Russia by, for example, participating in the international observation of the forthcoming Russian Presidential elections; encouraging contacts between the European Parliament, members states' parliaments and the Russian parliament; supporting Russian institutions, particularly in an OSCE and Council of Europe framework, and assisting in the development of local and regional administration in Russia;

—economic co-operation between the Union and Russia, through, for example, the early ratification of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement with Russia; developing trade relations and promoting Russia's integration into the international economy; the establishment of joint EU — Russia mechanisms with a view to facilitating the development of trade relations with Russia and encouraging the development of regional relations between Russia and its neighbours;

—co-operation between the Union and Russia in justice and home affairs, through, for example, co-operation in the fight against organised crime, drugs trafficking and money-laundering; co-operation in relation to illegal immigration and in matters relating to asylum and re-admission;

—co-operation with Russia on matters pertaining to security in Europe including on issues relating to disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and conflict prevention and

—the further development of consultation at all levels between the Union and Russia on foreign policy issues.

I wish to emphasise in the House today the importance which Ireland, on the eve of its EU Presidency, attaches to the successful and harmonious development of EU-Russia relations on the basis of the Union's strategy and the action plan. As incoming Presidency, Ireland will have an important role to play in its implementation. From the perspective of Irish-Russian bilateral relations, we have much to gain from its success.

Ukraine is, after Russia, the largest of the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union in terms of population and potential economic importance. Members will recall the enormous difficulties faced by Ukraine following its independence in 1991 — a severe contraction of economic output, inefficient heavy industrial and mining sectors, an energy sector badly in need of reform, dislocation of trade relationships, soaring prices and an agriculture sector heavily concentrated on inefficient collective and state farms. Moreover, there was uncertainty about the scope, pace and direction of economic reform. Happily, 1994 marked a turning point for Ukraine with the adoption of a comprehensive reform package leading to considerable progress in stabilisation last year in the areas of economic output, inflation and the government deficit.

The European Union fully supports the Ukrainian authorities' commitment to the current process of economic reform and has continued to provide support for Ukraine through macroeconomic assistance. The Partnership and Co-operation Agreement with Ukraine explicitly recognizes that support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine will contribute to the safeguarding of peace and stability in the region of central and eastern Europe and on the European continent as a whole.

With regard to the issue of nuclear safety in Ukraine, the EU's concerns on this point led it to propose last summer, in co-operation with its G 7 partners, an action plan for (i) the definitive closure of Chernobyl; (ii) reform of Ukraine's energy sector including the development of alternative energy sources; (iii) the up-grading of construction and operation standards in its nuclear subsector and (iv) ratification by Ukraine of the Vienna Convention on nuclear liability. This plan will involve a considerable effort for the international financial institutions and the EU — through EURATOM loans and TACIS grants. At its most recent meeting in Madrid, the European Council welcomed the agreement reached with Ukraine on the closure of Chernobyl by the year 2000. I know that I speak for all Members of this House when I emphasise the importance, for our own and for future generations of Europeans, in carrying through on this agreement. The horrors of Chernobyl demonstrate the need for solid partnership and co-operation among all European countries if transboundary challenges are to be effectively overcome in the future. This, in essence, is the philosophy which guides our approach to relations with the Republics of the former Soviet Union, including Ukraine.

The Agreements with Ukraine and Russia were signed in June 1994; with Moldova in November 1994 and with Belarus in March 1995. Agreements with Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan in Central Asia were signed in January and March last year, and with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, in the Caucasus region, in April this year. It is the aim of the European Union, circumstances permitting, to conclude PCAs — as they are called — with all of the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union in due course. An agreement is currently under negotiation with Uzbekistan.

The PCAs are founded on respect for human rights and democratic principles as essential elements in the partner countries' relations with the European Union. They are intended to provide a framework for political dialogue, to promote trade, investment and economic relations, to provide a basis for co-operation in various fields and to consolidate democracy and economic transition.

The Agreements are designed to assist actively the reform process in the countries concerned. The economic aspects, however, also have a political dimension. There is a close relationship between economic prosperity and political stability in this context, and many of the problems of the region — for example, the problems of minorities — will prove far more difficult to resolve without economic growth to change their context and to underpin solutions.

However, the agreements do not rely solely on an economic underpinning of reform for their political effectiveness — they include specific arrangements for political dialogue. This process is also intended to contribute to strengthening the relations of these countries with the wider community of democratic nations as a whole, from which they had been cut off for so long. The dialogue is also intended to bring about a convergence of positions between the dialogue partners on international issues of mutual concern.

Co-operation in the areas of strengthening stability and security in Europe, observance of the principles of democracy, respect and promotion of human rights, particularly those of persons belonging to minorities, are identified as priorities. The dialogue provisions of some of the agreements foresee the possibility of dialogue taking place on a regional basis, with a view to contributing towards a resolution of regional conflicts and tensions. This is intended to signal to these partners that political dialogue with the EU should not be seen as a substitute for their own efforts to solve regional problems with their neighbours. The dialogue would take place at ministerial, senior official and expert levels, and there is provision for co-operation of national parliaments with the European Parliament. In addition, in the case of Russia, consultations shall take place in principle twice a year between the Presidents of the Council and the Commission, on the one hand, and the President of Russia, on the other. Similar arrangements are provided for in the case of Ukraine.

Respect for democracy and principles of international law as defined by the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and the Charter of Paris for a new Europe are essential elements of the Agreements. Such provisions are a standard feature of all agreements between the EU and its OSCE partners. I would like to underline the importance which the EU, including Ireland, attach to these elements. There is provision in each of the Agreements for their suspension if their terms are breached.

The countries to which these Agreements relate are in the process of rapid and fundamental political and economic change. Their economic and political development had been stunted over a long period by totalitarianism. It should not surprise us, therefore, to find weaknesses and faults in the political and legal systems in many of them. Specific policies of the previous regimes have combined with historical tensions and rivalries — both within and between individual states — which the normal democratic process was not available to help resolve. This has meant that many latent conflicts and tensions have now come to the surface. Many of them involve also serious human rights abuses.

These conflicts — such as those in Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh and elsewhere — continue to be of serious concern to us, and the EU continues to work, bilaterally and through the OSCE or other fora, to seek solutions to them. What these Agreements do is to establish a partnership with the EU wherein a range of problems can be addressed, where the EU approach can be made known and assistance offered in seeking solutions. On the EU side, we must recognise that resolving these problems will take time and that we must, while seeking to promote our own standards, be prepared to make a long-term commitment to dialogue with the countries concerned.

The PCAs are broadly similar in structure and content but are tailored individually to meet the particular circumstances of each country. It is of particular interest to us in Ireland that the Agreements with Ukraine includes particular provisions regarding nuclear safety. In this connection, the recent Nuclear Safety and Security Summit in Moscow held by the G-7 countries, together with Russia, was an encouraging step in this direction. The countries that took part in the summit have committed themselves to working together to ensure the safety of nuclear power and to promote greater security for nuclear material. The summit communiqué recognises, inter alia, that all states have a legitimate concern that nuclear power is managed safely everywhere. The summit agreed a programme for preventing and combating ilicit trafficking in nuclear material. This programme aims to ensure increased co-operation among their governments in all aspects of prevention, detection, exchange of information, investigation and prosecution in cases of illicit nuclear trafficking.

The provisions of the Agreement with Ukraine commit the parties to co-operate, including in international fora, in addressing the problems that have arisen as a consequence of the Chernobyl disaster. Such co-operation shall address efforts in combating the radioactive contamination of air, soil and water; medical problems related to the impact of nuclear accidents on the public health; monitoring and supervising the radioactive condition of the environment; and training in the area of preventing nuclear accidents.

The parties to the PCAs grant each other most favoured nation status. Trade is to be free of quantitative restrictions, with certain exceptions, and discriminatory practices are banned. A safeguard clause is included, however, which may be invoked in the event of increased quantities of imports causing or threatening to cause substantial commercial injury. There is also provision for negotiations on anti-dumping measures.

The Agreements contain provisions relating to labour conditions, conditions of establishment and operation of companies, trade in services, transport, competition, intellectual property and financial and economic co-operation across a wide range of fields. Provision for co-operation in preventing illegal activities, including money laundering and drugs smuggling is also provided for. Pending ratification, the trade and economic aspects of the PCAs with Russia and Ukraine are being implemented by means of Interim Agreements concluded between the countries concerned and the European Community. Similar interim agreements are envisaged in the case of the other countries concerned.

I have no doubt the Agreements will assist in the further development of trade and economic ties with the countries concerned. This is, of course, a matter of very great interest to a country such as Ireland, given our high degree of dependency on external trade. The Agreement with Russia recognises that Russia is an economy in transition and that continued progress towards a market economy will be fostered by co-operation. Since 1990 GDP in Russia has fallen significantly. Industrial output appears to have halved since January 1992 and inflation has been severe since price controls were lifted in January 1992.

There have been more encouraging signs recently, however. According to the OECD economic survey of Russia, published in September 1995, the Russian economy could enter a period of rapid growth if macroeconomic stabilisation is successful and the momentum of liberalisation is maintained. Some upturn in GDP appears to have begun in the first half of 1995 and may accelerate to annual rates of up to 10 per cent in 1996.

Irish exports to the Russian Federation were almost £140 million in 1994 compared with £60 million in 1993. Exports for January to November 1995 reached £200 million. Beef exports came to over £50 million in 1994 and preliminary indications are that sales were even more buoyant in 1995. Russia is now our largest non-EU market for Irish beef. The other main exports in 1994 were automatic data processing equipment and metal ores — Alumina. Earnings from exports of services have also been very satisfactory and many Irish firms or organisations have successfully won consultancy contracts. This includes a number operating under the European Union's TACIS programme for technical assistance to the newly independent states in areas such as power generation, training, agricultural development, transport, aviation, software systems and financial/banking services. Irish companies have secured valuable technical assistance contracts since the inception of TACIS in 1990.

The Partnership and Co-operation Agreements now before the House are an important step forward in the European Union's relations with the countries of the former Soviet Union. Through the support which they will provide for the processes of political and economic reform, they will assist in the creation of new relationships based on shared values and on economic prosperity. I commend the agreements to the House for approval.

Turning now to the Europe Agreements with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the House will be aware that, to date, Europe Agreements have been negotiated with nine central and eastern European countries. These are Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Romania and Bulgaria as well as the three Baltic Republics. The background to the Europe Agreements lies in the momentous events of 1989. In response to the new situation which emerged following the fall of the Iron Curtain, the European Council in Dublin in April 1990 decided to negotiate wide-ranging association agreements with the countries of the region on the understanding that basic conditions with regard to democratic principles and transition towards a market economy are fulfilled.

The Agreements with Poland and Hungary were approved by the Dáil on 30 October 1992. The Agreements with Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic were approved by the Dáil on 15 June 1994. These Agreements have been ratified by all the Contracting Parties and are now in effect. The Europe Agreements with the countries of central and eastern Europe provide a broad and comprehensive framework for relations with the EU. They provide for structured, high level political dialogue, phased movement on an asymmetrical basis towards free trade, and an intensification of economic co-operation geared to the needs of the reforming economies. The Agreements have ushered in a new era in relations between the EU and its eastern neighbours. They have helped stabilise the political and economic situation in the countries of the region and have contributed significantly to the impetus towards economic and political reform. The Agreements, also, constitute an important element in the new architecture of the Continent and in the movement towards European integration.

The general structure and content of the Agreements with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania will be familiar to the House from our previous deliberations on the agreements with the other central and eastern European countries. I do not propose, therefore, to dwell at length on these features of the Agreements. The Agreements recall the historic links between the Baltic Republics and the member states of the European Union. There is a sense of pride shared by all in this House at the position adopted and maintained by Ireland during the years following the annexation of these countries by the former Soviet Union. That act of annexation was not recognised by the Irish people or its Governments. I take this opportunity to salute the peoples of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for successfully maintaining their national identities and to congratulate them on the recovery of their national independence.

The negotiation of the Europe Agreements with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was greatly facilitated by prior conclusion of free trade agreements between these countries and the European Union. The Europe Agreements are based on the commitment to intensify political and economic liberties and respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities. The main objectives are the further development of a free trade zone, and the promotion of economic relations and the advancement of economic, financial, cultural and social co-operation.

The Europe Agreements also cover the conditions attached to the movement of workers from the associated countries within the Union. They provide for non-discrimination for legally employed workers and for the co-ordination of social security systems. This is the case also with regard to the PCAs with Russia and others of the newly independent states. As a result of this, extra costs could arise to the Exchequer through the provision of old-age, invalidity and death benefits and for medical care purposes. It is considered, however, that such costs will be negligible.

There are also important provisions for political dialogue with the European Union which are intended to ensure increasing co-ordination on international issues.

The Agreements recognise the wish of the Baltic Republics to participate in the process of European integration, and, in particular, to accede to the European Union. Ireland's approach to enlargement of the European Union has been set out in detail in the Government's recent White Paper on Foreign Policy. Ireland welcomes the future enlargement of the Union as an historic opportunity to enhance European stability and confidence. We have no doubt but that enlargement will provide major economic opportunities, as well as significant political and economic challenges. We have already seen significant growth in our exports to the countries of central and eastern Europe, notably in manufactured goods and foodstuffs.

The European Council at Copenhagen decided that any European country which meets the required political and economic criteria shall be eligible to join the European Union. The capacity of the Union to absorb new members is also a consideration in this regard. The European Council at Essen agreed that the Baltic Republics will be included in the pre-accession strategy for the states of central and eastern Europe once the Europe Agreements are concluded. This strategy lays down a "route plan" for the central and eastern European countries as they prepare for Union membership. Its central component is the progressive preparation of the associated countries for integration into the Internal Market, with flanking policies to promote integration by means of financial assistance, dialogue and co-operation in the areas of common, foreign and security policy, the environment, justice and home affairs, culture, education and training.

The promotion of co-operation among these countries, their integration into the trans-European networks and the preparation of plans for the development of relations in the agricultural domain are also provided for. The European Union's PHARE programme is assisting the countries of central and eastern Europe to pursue the pre-accession strategy and some 5,000 million ECU have been allocated to PHARE to date.

The European Council at Madrid, last December, arrived at a number of important conclusions regarding future enlargement. Among these was the decision that following the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference which is addressing, inter alia, institutional questions in preparation for an enlarged Union, the Council will, at the earliest opportunity, and following receipt and consideration of the Commission's opinions on the applications, take the necessary steps for launching accession negotiations. The Council also expressed the hope that the preliminary stage of negotiations with the associated countries of central and eastern Europe will coincide with the start of negotiations with Cyprus and Malta, which are due to open six months following the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference.

The Baltic Republics have made considerable progress in a short time in consolidating democracy and in carrying through structural reforms in their economies. Rampant inflation has been brought under control and economic growth is now under way. I am happy to note our trade with the region, while small, is growing; exports to the three countries were worth £14 million in the ten months of October last year. Of greater significance, perhaps, is the growth in our exports of services. The Irish experience in economic development and in institution-building is particularly relevant to the needs of these countries and I am happy to note that Irish consultancies are very active in the region in a number of areas including tourism, civil aviation, telecommunications, rail transport, banking, power industry and management.

Since signature of the Europe Agreements with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in June last year, each of the Baltic Republics has formally submitted an application for membership of the European Union. These applications have, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, been referred to the European Commission for its opinion in the usual way. I have mentioned already, A Leas-Cheann Chomhairle, the pride we feel in the solidarity our people have shown with the Baltic Republics during the long period when they were denied their statehood. As for the future, we look forward to working closely with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in pursuit of our common goal of European integration and a peaceful and prosperous European continent.

To this end, I commend the Europe Agreements with the three countries concerned to the House for approval.

Mr. Davern

I thank the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs for his very detailed account of these agreements. Ten years ago people would not have heard about many of these countries or known where they were except perhaps Lithuania which had a brotherhood in America.

The European Community needs to appreciate that these countries have won their independence. One of my neighbours is a Ukrainian who had been captured at the age of 15 by the Germans in 1941. He brought his brothers and sisters to Ireland for a short visit and they were fascinated with the number of shops and the goods in them. They live on a collective farm and had not been outside the Ukraine before. He gives them approximately £30 a week but has to bring it himself as otherwise the Government will take 30 per cent from foreign remittances. We can appreciate how grossly unfair that is because during the 1950s the second largest source of income here was the money sent home in ten shillings and pound notes by emigrants to their families. We should urge Governments not to tax the remittances sent home by relatives.

The Ukraine is the largest debtor of the Russian Federation and owes about £6 billion. The Ukraine exports 35 per cent of its products to Russia. The Russian Federation pays 74 per cent of the Ukraine's service industry which is mainly for oil and gas exports piped through the Ukraine. I am worried about falling standards due to cutbacks in the nuclear power industry. Forty per cent of the Russian Federation's nuclear capacity is in Belarus and the Ukraine. Recent reports from Chernobyl are frightening. Children from Chernobyl have come to my part of the country due to the dedicated humanitarian work of Adi Roche originally from Clonmel but now living in Cork. Her work has shown us that whatever pain or ache we have, there are others who are far worse off. Despite their deformities those children in their short lives will have enjoyed some happiness. As a result of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 20 per cent of the land around Belarus is no longer suitable for arable farming and its agricultural export trade has collapsed because of fear of contaminated products.

The level of nuclear fallout from that disaster ten years ago is still being monitored from Chernobyl to as far as the Wicklow hills, the Comeragh Mountains and Donegal. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is monitoring the level of nuclear fallout in this country, particularly mountain areas to ascertain if the level of radiation is above and acceptable limit. It is frightening that ten years after the disaster this country, which is thousands of miles from Chernobyl, could be affected by it. If the European Union does not address this problem, ensures sufficient moneys are allocated to close nuclear reactors as quickly as possible and ensures their safe operation over a short period, the consequences will spell disaster not only for the unfortunate people in areas surrounding those reactors, but for everybody in Eastern Europe. I hope the Government will insist that the European Union will play a stronger role in observing, supervising and monitoring the safety of nuclear energy plants and that necessary funds will be provided towards that end to protect the long-term future of those countries and member states of the European Union.

The Tánaiste did not refer to the safety of the Russian fleet, particularly its nuclear submarine fleet, which I understand poses great danger and is sited in the waters of many Eastern European countries, particularly in Belarus and the Ukraine. I hope that will be taken into consideration.

The Tánaiste stated that our increased business with the Russian Federation amounted to £140 million last year. That increased business is welcome, particularly in the service area where we could be of greater assistance. I condemn the high level of corruption and bribery in the Russian Federation system. Contractors involved in building projects there must add a minimum of 10 per cent to the estimated cost of a project to cover the cost of paying the Mafia to guarantee the protection of contractors to enable them to complete their work. The high level of corruption there has resulted in the downfall of many small entrepreneurs who have invested in that country. Most people who conduct business there hire bodyguards and use their cars during business transactions. That level of corruption is not good for democracy. That country is experiencing the extreme negative aspects of democracy, which we are beginning to experience in this country, crime, terrorism, vandalism and drug trafficking. Following the collapse of the Soviet regime, the people there immediately experienced those negative aspects of democracy which have led to corruption and the corrupt appear to be winning the battle. The police and other law enforcement agencies are lower paid under the new regime than previously and do not command the same status while the criminals are better paid. The European Union, through international policing co-operation, has a role to play in assisting the Russian Federation in addressing the problem of drugs importation from areas by way of various contacts. Not all Russians are involved in drug trafficking, but 12 million Russians who wish to leave are on the move at any one time. They are not financially well off and may be tempted to smuggle drugs. I ask the Tánaiste and the Minister of State to ensure that the European Union guarantees the greater protection of its citizens who are providing services in the Russian Federation and other eastern countries.

Another issue is the enlargement of the European Union. The only way to achieve world peace is to guard against the growth of two absolute powers which marked the Cold War period. That can be achieved by ensuring that necessary moneys are used to assist democracy. That is something many people have been prepared to die for and the European Union should be prepared to pay for it. I appreciate that an injection of money is not the only way that can be achieved. In one of the elections in the Russian Federation candidates were allowed to spend only $50 on their election campaigns. That is a very small amount compared to what is spent by candidates in this country on elections. I am sure the Minister of State would not be embarrassed by the amount of money he would spend in ensuring that the Labour Party is elected.

Mr. Stagg

Not in the slightest.

Mr. Davern

If only £50 could be spent by each candidate, candidates would have to draw many posters. It is essential that the European Union should allocate more money to protect the democratic procedure and that we would assist the growing new political parties which have an interest in democracy, about which they learned only recently. We should fund a training system on electioneering and the party political system in the Russian Federation. I do not suggest that we should impose our political system on it, but such training would give them some idea of how a democratic system work. The European Union, particularly this member state, could help in that regard. I hope that money will continue to be allocated to achieve that. The best way world peace can be achieved is to ensure that countries which have become democratic remain so and that they will become economically viable. We are assisting that in a practical way, but moneys targeted at political education should also be provided. The European Union will act as observers in the Russian Federation elections, but it should play a role in advance of them by providing political education.

My party supports these motions. The Department of Foreign Affairs, which has a great record abroad in helping the poorer sections of democracies, should provide more in-depth assistance to these countries. More people should be sent to assist smaller eastern countries. Our concentration in the past has been on sending aid to Africa, but those fledgling democracies are experiencing difficulties and, therefore, the European Union should invest more in political education in those countries. That would help to achieve political stability which, I hope, will bring about economic stability from which we can all only gain. Nobody has anything to lose from improved democracy in those countries.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Progressive Democrats Party supports these motions. Everybody in this House and country favours the strengthening of ties between the European Union and the former constituent republics of the USSR.

These proposals must be viewed in distinct categories. The first one I propose to address is that of the Baltic Republics. Those republics are undoubtedly much closer to Western Europe than they have been since their establishment as separate states after the First World War. They are now looking to the European Union, not merely for their economic futures but to secure their political independence from the former Soviet Union. In that respect, the Government has a somewhat difficult role to play because of our ambivalence on co-operation with common collective security arrangements in the European sphere. Obviously we will tread very carefully in our dealings with other states which are primarily interested in political, economic and defence security and which wish to join the EU.

Clearly, the Russian people, through their Government, are concerned that NATO could extend up to their borders and that they would, in effect, find themselves hemmed in on all fronts by an alliance which they would perceive as potentially hostile to them. By the same token, none of the Baltic republics is in a position to guarantee its own independence or autonomy in the present circumstances and in some cases the presence of a significant Russian minority within those republics gives rise to considerable internal tensions and tension in the relationship between them and Russia. It is unrealistic to expect the Baltic republics not to want a security umbrella to extend over them, but whether a security umbrella such as NATO can be extended to cover them without creating a source of friction and instability in that area is a matter on which I have an open mind.

It is clear that some new modus vivendi between the West and East has to be arrived at in regard to the Baltic region. It is interesting that Russia still occupies a portion of the Baltic coast west of the Baltic republics in the former East Prussia; this piece of land was taken by Russia in the aftermath of the Second World War. All that area is fraught with difficulties from the point of view of maintaining a satisfactory modus vivendi between the various states. The European Union should be generous in accommodating the Baltic republics and, if necessary — short of outright NATO membership — some degree of security should be afforded to those republics to guarantee their independence, if possible by an arrangement to which Russia is a party rather than one from which it is excluded.

The debate in Ireland on European security is very stunted and it always concerns the issue of neutrality, whatever that means to the various participants in the debate. I do not think there is a huge appetite here to join NATO; I have not seen a significant number of people who want to join it. There is a combination of feelings among people. First, most people would be reluctant to become a member of an alliance which commits them to fight if any of the other members are involved in a war and, second, people are conscious that as a society we are not a significant military element and that to gear up our forces to participate in NATO would involve considerable levels of expenditure which would not be justifiable in modern Irish circumstances.

We should, therefore, look to the European Union to see how we can play a meaningful role in the common security arrangements of the EU as it develops. On several occasions I have suggested in the House and elsewhere that Ireland could usefully promote and participate in an EU equivalent of the American coastguard, which is short of a military naval force but which is considerably more sophisticated than the present coastguard arrangements in the EU. I do not think anyone would object to our participating in a force which would basically police the maritime western fringes of Europe. I have always thought that people would participate in such a service if it were established on an EU basis and that Ireland could play a meaningful role in European Union security at that level. I do not think anyone would object to such a force having facilities in Ireland, provided it was equivalent to the American coastguard and not so much a navy.

There is a huge need for such a force to prevent smuggling and to deal with international crime at sea, drug trafficking etc. There is also need for Ireland to participate in an effective policing system for fisheries policy, environmental matters, maritime law etc. This service could include a sophisticated European Union maritime rescue element in which we could participate. I believe most people would regard this as a fair basis on which Ireland could make a contribution and co-operate with other member states of the EU in doing something which, while military in one sense, would be short of an outright military alliance of the NATO type.

I wish to refer to the various states in the former USSR, other than the Baltic republics, with which these motions are concerned. It is in the interests of the European Union that these states, in so far as they want to maintain a separate existence from Russia, are encouraged to do so by deepening their economic relationship with the European Union. It is worth noting that already the relationship between the Ukraine, Moscow and Belarus is changing. However, it is not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that there will be a political upheaval in Moscow in the near future in which the communist party will regain power. Regardless of whether the threat comes from the left or right in Russian politics, it is by no means beyond the bounds of possibility that adventurism towards re-establishing the substance of the Soviet Union be on the horizon within a number of years. The best way of ensuring that there is no temptation to go down that road and to safeguard those people who might fall victims to such an expansionist viewpoint is to deepen economic and trading ties between those republics and the European Union.

These motions are timely. Ireland should be seen to give enthusiastic support to deepening and extending the relationship between the European Union and the republics which are the subject matters of these agreements.

Mr. Dukes

In keeping with the present fad for political correctness and because we have nonsensical legislation in place I declare an interest in this matter, having been involved in an advisory capacity in various PHARE and TACIS programmes covered by these agreements. I have no trouble in saying that. The reason I am involved in these programmes is that I have a deep interest in these countries. That leads me to welcome these Agreements. I do not make that statement because of any consideration of "the other way around".

Mr. Davern

The public flagellation is over.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Deputy should go the whole way and tell us how much he was paid.

Mr. Dukes

It is not flagellation but simply a comment on the stupidity of some of the politically correct fads which pale into insignificance beside the problems these Agreements are intended to deal with.

I am delighted we have a motion to ratify them. They have been concluded for some time, but cannot come into operation until they have been ratified by the national parliaments of member states and the European Parliament. I do not know why it has taken so long to get around to ratifying them, but I will not be begrudging because there are provisions to make the arrangements work on an interim basis pending ratification.

The Commission in Brussels deserves a great deal of congratulation for the way it went about constructing these Agreements. I know that the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament have been involved, but it was the Commission which did the ground work with a good deal of imagination and flexibility, given the very difficult and varying situations in the countries concerned.

In various contexts, both political and otherwise, I have had the opportunity of visiting many of them and being involved in discussions on economic, trade and political matters. The variety of problems which have to be dealt with is astonishing. It would do us well to reflect on their concerns which are very well addressed by these Agreements.

There are concerns about security and stability. I agree entirely with everything Deputy McDowell said, particularly his remarks about security. It would do us good to look at the security problem through central and eastern European eyes occassionally when we would see how much of our traditional position is rather futile mythology.

It is a matter of great satisfaction that there are provisions in these Agreements which insist on human and political rights in these countries. There are grounds to fear that previous injustices may be followed by new injustices. In Estonia, for example, almost 30 per cent of the population is of Russian origin. The Estonians, who feel justifiably angry at how they were oppressed and exploited for many years by the former Soviet regime, are now in danger of perpetrating an injustice on people of Russian nationality who live there.

Those of us who are involved in any way in these discussions — we are, probably, in a good position to do this — should make the point that one discrimination can never wipe out the effects of a previous one and that it is wrong to repeat the sins perpetrated by those who have gone before. The Agreements insist on the maintenance of and adherence to democratic principles and human rights. That is a very important provision.

In many of the countries covered by these Agreements and arrangements there are still only the very beginnings of what we might call a normal political party system. If one looks at the political systems of many of these countries, one will find that there is a very high degree of fragmentation in politics. In some cases one will find one large party and a number of smaller parties and in others a multiplicity of small parties. This creates tensions. In some cases one will find that the largest party, which may not be very large in overall terms, derives from the previous Communist Party and that they have not lost all the habits of the former regimes.

Although there is in some places the appearance of multi-party democratic parliaments the actual operation of the system is not anything like what it appears on the surface. For this reason the close involvement and support offered by the European Union, through these Agreements, for political development is an essential component in helping the people of these countries to realise what their liberation from former Soviet rule really means and can bring to them.

All of them are still going through a process of shake down where what one might call the long-term lines of their political systems and ideological divisions have not yet emerged and there is a certain degree of fluidity. This is a period of some delicacy and danger. The more assistance that can be given to avoid the traps and pitfalls inherent in such a system the better. This means, very often, that we should talk to people in these countries, be involved with them a great deal and, whatever their political inclination, help them to see how they can make a multi-party democratic system work. Not all of these states are yet out of the woods.

On the economic front they face a similar and, very often, bewildering array of problems. The shock of transition has been enormous. There are, of course, the wry jokes that one associates with some countries in Eastern Europe. In Hungary, for example, one of the jokes asks what is worse than communism, to which the answer is whatever comes after it. In many ways, one cannot blame people because certainty has been replaced by uncertainty which is usually accompanied for some period by rapidly rising prices, both in nominal and real terms, decline in living standards and the emergence of unemployment, about which they knew nothing as the system was designed to mask substantial levels of unemployment or under employment.

It is a totally new system for many people involved in productive enterprises in these countries to have to find out what a market is and make decisions about what can be produced economically. It is a totally new science to find a customer for what is produced. Many of these countries are still very far away from having in place the normal systems of market channels to which we are all accustomed. In many of them the credit system is rudimentary at best and has been marked in the years since liberation by a succession of bank failures which have tended at times to give the market economy a bad name.

These agreements should give us cause to reflect in another way. When looking at the possible enlargement of the EU we are quick to identify competition difficulties which may arise — how many of us have heard that Polish, Czech or Hungarian agriculture will pose a threat? That is a blinkered view — we should be looking at the possible emergence of a set of new, vibrant market economies in central and eastern Europe which will add to the economic space of the EU in a way which will benefit all and we should direct our efforts and policies to helping them emerge. On a visit here last year, the Hungarian President said we should not worry about Hungary being competition for Ireland because it will be a market for us for many years to come. His approach, the same as that set out in these agreements, is far more constructive than the defensive reflex we have adopted up to now.

Finally, we should be conscious of one particularly delicate element of this EU enterprise. We should ensure the peoples of the countries involved in these agreements do not have reason to believe we are treating them as a political, economic and sociological laboratory. We should not preach, we should assist and that is what these agreements are designed to do.

Mr. Deasy

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. These eastern European countries have a difficulty which is not fully appreciated in the west. To date, additional member states which have joined the EU such as Austria, Sweden and Finland have been well prepared and economically sound. We are now anticipating the membership of six eastern European countries and possibly the three Baltic states, as referred to in some detail in the Minister's speech. Other countries, whether small like Cyprus and Malta or large like Turkey, are also considering joining the EU. As the living standards in the nine countries under discussion are so much lower than any country currently in the EU, tremendous financial strain will be put on the Union's budget over a long number of years if their membership is accepted. I ask the Tánaiste to provide an approximate timescale for when these countries will join the EU and to outline the financial consequences of their membership, not alone in respect of those countries but also for Ireland. We will obviously benefit much less than we have to date but we must be given a realistic assessment of the position. I have asked questions about this matter in the House but I have not received an exact or even an approximate reply. It is time that the implications of these countries joining the EU was spelt out; I do not oppose their membership but we are entitled to an assessment of what will happen.

The association and co-operation agreements with Russia, the Ukraine and the other independent republics are welcome. If anything, western Europe, the US and Japan have been negligent in supporting these countries financially. It is in everyone's interest that democracy is made to work in those countries because if it does not they will slide back into communism or, worse still, a more militant form of dictatorship. We can all see this trend. The Communist party is favourite to win the Russian elections and people like Mr. Zhiranovsky also have considerable support. They have painted a drastic picture of what they will do if they regain power.

There are 78 republics within the Russian Federation and events like the Chechen conflict have drawn our attention to countries which we did not know existed. Chechnya and the surrounding countries were barely, if ever, heard of previously. The political situation in Russia and some of the other countries mentioned in these agreements is so fluid it is frightening. When President Yeltsin uses the Chechen war as an election platform, or threatens to expel British diplomats for spying in what some feel is a bogus effort to boost his election chances, one sees how fragile the system is.

I would have thought western countries would have gone out of their way to invest heavily in eastern Europe, to ensure political stability and to safeguard democracy for the future but that has not happened sufficiently. Anyone who has been to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — which are better off than most of the countries under discussion — knows that their infrastructure and standard of living is far short of anything in the EU. Western investment is, therefore, essential. Co-operation and partnership are fine but the practical day-to-day details of running a country are far more important. If people are hungry and fed up with a democratic system, I fear they will revert to something more radical.

The Ukraine and Russia have a substantial amount of nuclear materials and it is worrying to read that individuals are smuggling them out and selling them illegally, to get western currency in exchange for weapons of war. The Indonesian navy's complement of ships and submarines is almost totally made up of military hardware purchased from countries in the former Soviet Union, primarily the Ukraine.

Another alarming development is the gangsterism which has evolved in Russia and has not simply remained there but spread to countries in western Europe. Gambling, prostitution and drug trafficking in many German cities, such as Frankfurt and Berlin, have been taken over by Russian gangsters. It is very disturbing that there are elements out of control in Eastern Europe, particularly Russia. Our democratic system seems unable to combat that. The West has not done enough. I know the amounts of money required are very large but we should try a little harder. There are not enough people in the West prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to maintain democracy in these countries.

Mr. Ferris

As chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, I welcome the motions on the Agreements moved in the House this morning by the Tánaiste. The Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Gay Mitchell will reply. Many of the states involved in these Agreements have been in touch with me, either through discussions with members of my Committee or through their embassies and aspire to become members of the European Union.

A new situation arose on the dissolution of the USSR. The European Union is very concerned to support the political and economic reform process in these emerging independent states. This is a responsibility of the European Union in the context of its commitment to enlargement, although enlargement will have financial consequences for us. If we agree with the concept of the European Union, we must have trade agreements with these countries in the interim before their full membership. That will allow them to converge with EU policy and have trade and economic relations with the EU in preparation for full membership.

There are also chapters in the Agreements dealing with political dialogue which set out the general objective of that dialogue, which is to strengthen links with the European Union. Members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs were extremely concerned when they visited Lithuania, one of the Baltic states, to learn it came under attack a few years ago. The attack focused on the House of Parliament, which was the most obvious sign of democracy in the city. Twelve people lost their lives in what was intended to be a military coup. Tanks rumbled down the streets again, there was an assault on the parliament building, the television station and other key installations.

These states want to have relations with the European Union and to have agreements which will assist their democratic and political progress. They want to participate in all aspects of the Union and to be involved in the area of common defence and security, which is very important for them. In addition, they want to be part of the whole concept of European trading. I was pleased to note that in many of the debates we had with them they did not express any interest in competing for funds under existing agricultural policies, because some of them already have efficient and low cost agricultural operations. The Scandinavians found the terms of the Common Agricultural Policy more restrictive than their Governments' policies. We have an obligation, as members of the Union — and my Committee also feels this obligation — to welcome this development which is being endorsed by the House.

The common goal of these central and eastern European states is membership of the European Union. The nine states which have already applied are Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the Czech Republic. From our discussions with some of these states, either at ambassador or parliamentary delegation level, it seems quite a number of them have achieved the economic status required for membership of the Union.

The European Council concluded in Copenhagen that these countries shall become members as soon as they are able to assume the obligations of membership. The Commission and the Council of Ministers have decided the processing of the applications from Malta and Cyprus will start immediately after the end of the Intergovernmental Conference. I presume all other negotiations will not await the conclusion of those negotiations, and that as soon as the requirements for membership have been complied with we will initiate the process of expanding and enlarging Europe.

At all our committee meetings we are concerned with the implications of enlargement because we are net beneficiaries at the moment. However, we had a meeting yesterday with the budgetary committee of the European Parliament, which came to seek the approval of our Parliament for a redistribution by returning funds to the member states because they have a surplus of 11.5 billion ECUs. The states which are major contributors to the fund want to get this money back whereas other members would like it to be channelled into areas of need.

We have various areas of need and I reminded the delegation of the problems with regard to flood relief, which they conceded, and the range of problems which arise for our beef sector because of a problem in another member state. Funds will have to be made available to maintain the income of existing member states' farmers and producers. The 11.5 billion ecus could be used for that. There is a further 1.5 billion ecus in the social fund. The Government and the House need to know about these areas and the plans of our Departments to ensure the maximum amount of funds available to us is drawn down. That is a problem for the existing members.

I support the concept of these Agreements. Lobbying by these states gave us some cause for concern that delay in finalising them was creating instability in the various countries. It is important, particularly before the elections take place in Russia, for them to realise there is a commitment from us, as members of the European Union and co-signatories of these Agreements, to finalising our own affairs. I fully support the motion.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. G. Mitchell)

I thank all the Deputies who have contributed to this debate and will reply to the points that have been made. In the context of the preparations for our Presidency of the European Union, the Government has identified the further development of the Union's relations with the associated countries, and with regions outside the Union generally, as being among the areas which are likely to be the main focus for the Union during our term in office.

The ratification of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreements with Russia, Ukraine and the other newly independent states of the former Soviet Union, and of the Europe Agreements with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, will be a major step forward in this regard. The importance of the Agreements in terms of the overall efforts of the Union to support the processes of political and economic reform among the countries of central and eastern Europe has been set out. The House is aware of the significance attaching to the Agreements in helping to ensure that peace and prosperity, founded on democracy and respect for human rights, shall prevail in Europe and among the European Union's partner countries.

As set out in the Government's recent White Paper on Foreign Policy, Ireland recognises that the process of change in Russia over the past decade has been fundamental. We consider, and this is central to the Union's approach to future relations with Russia, that the reform process should continue to receive our support. Our policy is based on the recognition that Russia should not feel marginalised by the West and that relations with Russia and the other countries of the region should be based on partnership, not confrontation.

This partnership approach, and practical co-operation in furthering the political and economic process of transformation in Russia and among the other newly independent states, is the essence of what is envisaged in the partnership and co-operation Agreements. If we truly wish, in a spirit of solidarity as well as of self-interest, to achieve the goals of peace and stability based on the fundamental humanitarian precepts which we have adopted, there is no alternative starting point for the development of our relations with the countries concerned.

Ireland has its own role to play in this. During our Presidency we will be encouraging those member states which have not ratified the Agreements to do so. We will be chairing the many working groups and committees dealing with the EU's policy in all its aspects towards these countries. We will ensure that the work of the EU in this area is given the priority it deserves. We will be watching closely, on behalf of the Union, developments in the region. With regard to Russia, for example, last Monday the EU adopted an action plan to give practical effect to the strategy agreed by Foreign Ministers in November 1995. The strategy sets out the framework within which EU policy operates in its relations with Russia, outlines the principles of that policy and prescribes the elements which a common approach to the conduct of EU-Russian relations should include in the areas of democratic reform, European security, external relations and economic reform. Implementation of that plan will be an important focus of our Presidency. We do not propose, however, to neglect other areas of the region, and will be particularly mindful of the conflict situations there. The situation in Chechnya is important in this regard.

In all of our efforts in this context, we will be very much aware that we are to a large extent breaking new ground. There has been enormous change over a very short period of time. Who among us would have thought a few short years ago that we would now be in the middle of a genuine presidential election campaign in Russia? Much still remains to be done, but the reform process is under way in all of these countries, and these agreements will serve both to provide further impetus to reform and to support and enhance those reforms already under way.

A future enlargement of the European Union, and the many complex issues associated with it, will be a major focus of our Presidency. The associated countries of central and eastern Europe, including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, see membership of the Union as the key to consolidating the hard won results of democratic reform, of accelerating their economic development and, most importantly, as enhancing their security.

The challenges facing the associated countries as they seek to deepen economic and political reform are enormous. Huge progress has been made in a short period of time, and the pre-accession strategy laid down for them by the European Council meeting at Essen provides an important route map as they proceed towards greater integration with the Union.

The Baltic Republics enjoy an historic relationship with the countries of the European Union and their proper place lies in co-operation and integration within the new Europe. In this connection, the Government is gratified at the welcome accorded by the Heads of Government of countries in the wider Baltic region, including Russia, at their meeting in Visby in Sweden earlier this month, to the EU's Baltic Sea Region Initiative. The initiative was prepared by the European Commission at the request of the European Council and was introduced at Visby by Commission President Santer. The initiative aims at promoting the region as an area where co-operation, democracy and market economy prevail. Among the topics to be included in action programmes which will be further elaborated are support for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in their preparation for membership of the European Union and in their preparations, together with Russia, for membership of the World Trade Organisation.

The encouragement of regional co-operation is a major aim of the Europe agreements and of the PCAs. The Government considers that such initiatives will play an important role in the continued progress of political and economic reform among the countries concerned.

Our Presidency priorities also include such areas as the fight against crime and, in particular, against drugs. Both in the partnership and co-operation agreements and the Europe agreements under discussion contain provision for increased co-operation between the Union and parties of the agreements. In addition to drugs, money laundering and other forms of crime, including arms smuggling and illegal immigration, are addressed with a view to enhanced co-operation in measures to counter them.

Control of drug trafficking in a two-way process. We in the European Union countries must do all in our power to reduce demand and convince our young people that drugs involve not glamour but misery, crime, squalor and death. At the same time, we must engage with countries which are a source of channel for drugs or their precursors and co-operate with them in controlling the gangs which are behind the traffic. The drug traffic, and the violence and corruption which goes with it, is highly destructive of civil society, especially in emerging democracies. It is in all our interests to secure the greatest possible measure of mutual assistance and co-operation to control this scourge.

The Presidency offers an opportunity to promote joint action and co-operation in the European Union to alleviate the scourge of drug trafficking and drug abuse. The Government is at the moment considering initiatives it might take. There are, of course, two aspects to the drug problem - demand and supply. Efforts have to be directed at both. Addicts must be treated to wean them off their dependence. Steps must be taken to eliminate the kind of social conditions that promote the drug culture.

We do not have so much a law problem as an order problem. We need to approach it on two fronts. We must deal severely with the criminals and reawaken in this House and in the country a sense of social justice. We have become like wets, afraid to mention the term "social justice". What brought most of us into politics was the need to change society. However, we are now accepting conditions, especially the housing conditions in which people live. There is an absence of estate management and access to third level education — the rate of access is only 15 per cent for most inner city dwellers. We also need to reawaken a sense of social justice in the emerging democracies. It would help us to deal with the drugs problem.

In all these areas there are useful programmes and useful forms of co-operation that the European Union can assist with. The provisions contained in the Agreements now before the House will provide an important element in the international effort to combat drugs trafficking. In approving the terms of these Europe Agreements and Partnership and Co-operation Agreements, the House will be bringing the EU a step closer to the goal of a Europe in which the divisions of the past will gradually diminish in importance.

When implemented, the Agreements will permit the creation of a true partnership between the EU and the countries concerned. It will allow the EU to bring to bear on the political and economic situations in those countries its not inconsiderable resources, thereby assisting the reform process in which these states themselves are already engaged. It will not of itself solve all their problems, but it will provide the long-term structure necessary for so doing. It will go a long way towards creating conditions of economic prosperity and democracy without which long-term regional peace and stability would not be possible. Finally, it will secure the future of all the countries of the Continent as members of the one European family of nations.

I wish to briefly deal with a couple of points raised. Deputies McDowell and Dukes raised the issue of the security concerns of the Baltic states and Russia. Ireland understands and fully respects the wishes of the countries of central and eastern Europe who wish to join NATO and the EU at the earliest possible date. The right of sovereign states to choose their security and defence arrangements is an important principle recognised by the UN and the OSCE. Our position is that any enlargement of existing security organisations should enhance security in Europe, be responsive to the security concerns of all states and should not result in the creation of new dividing lines in Europe.

We recognise that Russia has legitimate security interests which must be respected. In the OSCE, Ireland and our EU partners work closely with Russia to develop this key pan-European forum. Russia has also been welcomed into the Council of Europe. All these developments illustrate that the countries of Europe are committed to building relations of mutual respect and maximum co-operation with Russia. With regard to the Deputy's comments on Irish participation in European security arrangements, Ireland will adopt a broad and comprehensive approach to this debate at the Intergovernmental Conference.

Deputy Davern was concerned about the statehood of newly independent states. The matter of the Baltics, in particular, was raised. I am aware of minority problems in these countries as elsewhere. There are a number of structures in place — for instance. OSCE missions in these countries to assist in reducing tensions. The EU has encouraged negotiated settlement of outstanding difficulties in a democratic and peaceful way. Deputy Davern also mentioned training in democracy in these countries. I very much support that concept. There are a number of programmes in place to assist democratisation — for example, the EU Tacis Democracy Programme and the work of the OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights — ODIHR — as well as a number of programmes of the Council of Europe. Deputy McDowell mentioned the independence of the former Soviet states. The PCAs will help to strengthen that independence.

Deputies Deasy and Ferris raised the question of enlargement. It is time we dealt with this issue in a more open way. We need enlargement for two reasons: first, for selfless reasons — we must help emerging democracies and show them there is a target which they can achieve; and, second, for selfish reasons. The only reason Western Europe is experiencing prosperity — Ireland is approaching 90 per cent of average per capita GNP of the 15 wealthiest states in Europe — is that there has been peace and stability on the Continent since the creation of the European coal and Steel Community. In the early part of this century there were two world wars in Europe. So far this century 190 million people lost their lives in conflict, 60 million of them in Europe. The European Union is about peace and stability. Without peace and stability we could not have prosperity and our children would be at war.

For selfish reasons we need enlargement, and that will take place. Six months after the end of the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations will open with Malta and Cyprus and thereafter with some of the central European states, probably Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. The Nordic countries will then ask about the Baltics. Shortly after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference the European Commission will present the Union with a report on the consequences of enlargement. There will be challenges in terms of Structural Funds and cohesion countries will be very wealthy compared to some of the applicant states. There will also be challenges to the common policies, particularly the Common Agricultural Policy, but these challenges are open to negotiation. We are in the driving seat and changes cannot be made without agreement. There is an opportunity for us, in a very peaceful way, to negotiate enlargement of the Union with all the implications that involves. It is a great challenge, but we should look at it as a great opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.